They won't let people in NZ with a crminal record do jury duty I think.
My story? Well I used to be a street racer and got busted doing 183KM/h in a 50KM/h zone. Yes, it was stupid. Yes, I know people are going to flame me about it. Yes, I have learned from it and haven't had so much as a parking ticket since I was busted

:-) That's funny.. I was thinking more along the lines of Goldamn Sachs... Unlike some, I'm not really obsessed with OBL.. But since you brought it up, one must question the motives a person who convicts a man on pure prosecutorial hearsay and no cross examination.

Personally, I would have thought that some of those that are pissed about american civil rights being taken away would have joined in the victory celebration in a show of crass political cynicism and said, "Great job everyone! We Won! The body scanners, and patriot act are going away! We won!" repeating the patriotic blather every other sentence and how failing to restore habeas corpus and repeal the patriot act and related regulations is denigrating our brave troops that brought us this victory. Oh, well back to "America, the road to fascism, are we there yet?"

Everyone deserves due process, or else you get a slippery slope where more and more alleged offenders are denied it, and locked up and/or executed without a trial, and next thing you know, you're living in a dictatorship or worse. Of course, to get a trial, you have to be apprehended, and if you don't go willingly and get shot by the police, that's your problem, but even there there's due process if law enforcement is working properly, as there'll be an investigation to make sure the police acted properly

I went that fast in my worn-out 1959 Cadillac one day on the interstate, and the car had more in it. I just ran out of room.
Good thing the cops were somewhere else, or the jury would have lacked my charm and wit.

minimum $1000 fine here and you wouldn't be alowed to drive for 5 years, they would also impound your car, also if you had been caught doing so much as "a chirp of the tires at the traffic lights on a cops bad day so they book you for hooning offences" then your car gets crushed...

3 Australia, the nanny state. Just ask us how scared we are of people in boats.

Heh, tell me about it. Professionals don't always believe what they're told to believe, so often neither side's lawyers trust them. A coworker of mine was once on a jury along with another manager from the engineering company we worked at, and the two of them were the only ones who didn't believe that the case they were on was appalling and shouldn't have gone to trial at all and vote the guy not guilty. The defendant was a Hispanic guy accused of carrying drug paraphernalia, a tube of airplane glue an

I don't know what country you were in, but in the United States there are two types of jury. The grand jury has more members and decides if there's enough evidence for the case to go to trial. The petit jury (more commonly called the trial jury) determines guilt/innocence/etc.

The concept of two juries -- grand and petit -- traces back to 12th century England. In the U.S., the Constitution (5th amendment) requires that a person must be indicted by a grand jury before being tried in federal court for a felony. That is, a person cannot be tried for a federal felony merely by being accused. This traces back to abuses by crown prosecutors in the colonies, where criminal trials were held to prosecute individuals who expressed anti-British political sentiments.

However, this does not apply to the states, where a person can be accused by a prosecutor in front of a judge and arraigned by the judge. An indictment and an arraignment have the same effect. In both cases, however, the prosecutor must convince either a grand jury or a judge (1) that a crime actually occurred and (2) there is some evidence that the accused might have committed the crime.

In California, most state felonies are tried after an arraignment. Grand juries are used when a prosecutor needs to obtain testimony from witnesses who fear appearing in court. Because grand jury proceedings are secret (even names of witnesses are not disclosed), such testimony is easier to obtain and may lead to additional evidence against the accused. At trial, however, some of those witnesses may be required to testify again since the U.S. Constitution (6th amendment) requires that a defendant be allowed to see all testimony against him or her. That is, innocence or guilt of a defendant cannot be determined by a petit jury based on secret grand jury testimony but can be based on non-secret evidence discovered through grand jury testimony.

- The Grand Jury does not always indict people. Sometimes it is done by "information" ie, the prosecutor shows the judge probable cause or some nonsense.- The jury right in America, at least as far as a civil trial is concerned (I haven't studied criminal procedure yet), is not absolute. It's "preserved" the way it was in 1791, when the amendment was added. That means if you ask for $$ you probably can get a jury, but if you ask for an injunction, you can't.

The jury right in America, at least as far as a civil trial is concerned (I haven't studied criminal procedure yet), is not absolute. It's "preserved" the way it was in 1791, when the amendment was added. That means if you ask for $$ you probably can get a jury, but if you ask for an injunction, you can't.

Yep. The difference between courts of law and equity which used to be (Federally) separate. Now I think only Delaware (in the US) maintains separate courts of law and equity.

Has the party properly requested a jury? They must do so within 10 days of the last pleading (a complaint or an answer, generally) directed towards an issue.Has a statute expressly authorized a jury?Did the claim for which a jury was requested exist in 1791? If it did, was a jury allowed then or not?If the claim didn't exist prior to 1791, is it seeking legal or equitable relief? Legal relief is money, or some "equitable looking" things like ejectment (think: ge

Err, yeah. Shouldn't post so quickly. It makes sense in DE, where everyone incorporates, because even though equitable relief means that the judge gets to kinda do his own thing and rule as he sees fit, that's more predictable than a jury.

It's law french. You usually see latin in the legal world, but they like to fuck with law students by throwing in some french:

Venire panel: The group of people that they pick the jury from.Voir dire: The process of whittling down that group of people down to the number of people needed.Petit Jury: A jury empaneled to decide facts.Grand Jury: A jury empaneled to indict persons.

Last time I checked, the Federal Bureau of Investigations also had a French word in it, while quite a few words in American English seem to be derived from British English. British English in its turn is derived from a mix of Old French, Old Scandinavian and Old German with some Celtic dialect thrown in. All of the above have been influenced by Greek and Latin, while those in turn have been influenced by several Indo-European languages like Aramaic.

I would be proud to do jury duty, but I have IBS and I'm pretty sure that this might disqualify me (were I ever contacted). When might I be asked about this type of information? How long are juries in the seats between breaks? What is the system for taking breaks? Is it at the whim of the judge? Do jurors have to request them? Before a trial starts, are you given information about how long it might last?

Typically you're given some idea how long the trial will last. The petit jury I was on, we were expecting it to be about a day, however it spilled over into a second day (prosecution witnesses took longer to testify, I guess, so defense mostly got pushed to the second day).

It's really up to the judge when breaks happen, and there weren't really any in my trial except for lunch the two days. In theory you can slip a note to the bailiff if there's a problem, you need to use the bathroom, or whatever, and he'l

"Complaint" is a relative term: The first time I was chosen, about ten years ago I had to call in every Monday night for 3 months! Not a grand jury, purely trial. I received my summons in August 2000, and finished up after Thanksgiving. Luckily, the last two times - '06 & this last January - were only for three days. The jury coordinator said that the summoning is absolutely random, based on a Driver's license and voter registration, but I have my doubts: Several people said that they routinely ge

That's probably still random. What we as humans perceive as random would in fact be severely lacking in entropy. You can frequently figure out who faked results in a statistics exercise when too few numbers repeat.

I was on a jury a couple years back, and it was exceptionally long, took precisely a month. Around here you get an automatic out if you've served within a year, and because of our location, we can get a summons for municipal, superior or federal court. Which almost certainly increases the likelih

First class mail is not a legal way to serve process. Their is no proof of receipt. You can ignore them unless you are stupid enough to call the number on the follow up threat. Calling the number is the only proof of receipt they have.

A friend of mine was called to serve on the jury at the Central Criminal Court in London, but told them it would interfere with his university exams. They let him wait until the summer.

Jury selection here is very simple: 15 people are chosen at random from those registered to vote, they must show up at the court. 12 are then chosen at random to be on the jury.

Jury service usually lasts for up to ten working days.Many trials last only two or three days, so you may be on a jury for another trial.If a case is complex (like fraud) it could take longer than ten days. You’re asked at the court if this would cause you any difficulties.

It was certainly a valuable experience, if for no other reason than to see the court system in action.

I was on call once and served on two juries. I was glad I got to see a jury trial from the inside once, but I really don’t like having to decide the fate of other people.

In my state, the jury not only decides guilt or innocence, but also the punishment (a judge can reduce but not increase a sentence). The defendants in my trials were obviously guilty, but the defendant’s lawyers were tryi

It's really strange. When I talk to people either they get called for jury duty all the time, or they have never been called. I don't know the clerk just lost the paperwork on a bunch of us, or we have some obscure disqualifying factors or what. I vote every year, my vehicle registration is up-to-date, I am registered for the selective services, I have never been arrested, yet I have never been called for jury duty. On the other hand I know several people at work that are called nearly every year. I would a

I have been called 3 times, all 3 times when I showed up there was a note on the door saying that jury selection was cancelled that day and we should all go home. It seems to be a pretty common thing to happen around here.

I am sure some of you will say that the note was probably fake. It was on the door to the courthouse on the inside of the door and the door was locked.

Must be a small court. When I went on jury duty a couple years back, there were hundreds of jurors in the jury room that first day, the court building itself had something like 9 floors of which I think 8 had courtrooms on. I don't think that they ever do that here, probably the closest is if their's a bomb threat or shooting on premises.

I've been called, but never picked. Otherwise, I would volunteer. I suspect it'd be the same thing again if I did. Maybe if I lived in a city smaller than Houston, but here, I might as well wait until I get the summons and see if they pick me this time.

The only moment in history when jury trials were held in the Netherlands was between 1811 and 1813, during the French occupation. It was called "lekenrecht" at the time, which translates to something like "layman's law". From 1814 on, the concept was abandoned and never reinstated. There's no love for jury trial in the Netherlands.

I think the term "lekenrecht" already says a lot about how jury trial is looked upon. The Dutch don't want justice to be in the hands of amateurs. We generally think it's a good thing when officials with proper training are in charge. This reduces the chance of false arguments being used. Deciding upon someone's guilt and penalty is a fact-driven process. We feel emotions have little place in a courtroom. Therefore, it is better when lawyers discuss matters with the judge(s) directly, instead of having to g

Interesting. In the US all officials are assumed to be idiots and corrupt. Given the track record of most officials, this is a pretty safe view. It is muc harder to be taken in by a corrupt official when you go into the process believing the guy is corrupt. The history of corruption extends all the way back to England before there were colonies.

Random people off the street are viewed as less likely to have any particular agenda in the courtroom. So they are "safer".

I am self employed, having to take a fortnight off — unpaid — would cost me a lot. If I had been employed my employer would have probably continued to pay me my full salary (not all employers do), but why should he shoulder the burden of supporting the legal system. The judges, barristers,... all get paid properly so why not pay the jurors their normal salary ?

A fortnight, wow. About 10 years ago, my group leader got called for jury duty and we didn't see him again for six weeks! About a week of that was spent sitting in a side room on odd days just in case they actually got round to this case that day. Best part is, all twelve had decided the bloke was guilty within about ten minutes.

^ This. I would love to have done it, but I just couldn't. What made me angry was that there are apparently millions (NZD) in unpaid/uncollected fines from people who have simply failed to turn up for jury service without any explanation.

At least for the US, just show up for jury duty wearing a FIJA badge, button, or printed label, and when the judge gets to the question "Will you accept the law as I give it to you, even if you disagree with it?" tell them "I stand on my right, as recognized by the US Supreme Court in Sparf v. US, to judge both the guilt of the defendant and the law under which he is charged", and you'll be out the door again very quickly.

Saying "I'm going to follow the law, as upheld by the Supreme Court" is not an instant ticket out. That is only going to get the prosecution to try to strike you, not the defense. And it isn't cause for dismissal, the prosecution (likely) can't use that as a 'strike for cause', and instead (depending on state) will be one of his few alloted 'strike without cause', assuming that state allows it at all. Be realistic, no one wants to serve, and they have heard it all. Bringing up a Supreme Court case from over 100 years ago isn't new, and likely will just piss off the judge, which in general, is not a good idea.

You can also get heat for trying to get out by claiming you can't be unbiased, etc. during voir dire , including being threatened with contempt. Some judges have been known to hold you over, or to another case, just to be as much of an ass as you are being. They have a job to do, and you are not any more important that the other people sitting there. Really, you aren't.

I've been called many times, never picked. Once they find out I worked a few years as a criminal defense investigator, the prosecution will request a strike for cause and have gotten it. If they pick me, I will serve. I won't like it, but I'll do it.

He's not saying "I'm going to follow the law, as upheld by the Supreme Court", he's saying "I'm going to evaluate the validity of the law, despite what you (the judge) may say about its validity, as the Supreme Court has ruled is my right".

By totally ignoring the jury process, you lose any right to complain about the choices juries make at trials.

Being a citizen of the U.S. means that you have some MORAL obligations, and one of them is to provide, from time to time, services as an intelligent jury member to help make sure the court system works as intended.

Happily not everyone is a selfish as you and so in the end the jury system worked, but if everyone thought as you do the system would collapse.

"Gee, I don't know, maybe because the only reason he is able to continue his business is that the state guarantees the enforcement of his contracts."

Back in the olden days, the jury-duty stipend was a lot closer to the amount the jury members would make at their normal job. It just hasn't been increased over time. If it worked then, why wouldn't it work now?

I'm not saying that the court should pay jury members $5000/day if they're a billionaire executive, just that it's insulting to even be asked to put you

Where's the "I immediately throw the jury summons in the trash and ignore it" option? If you don't acknowledge receiving it, they can't prove it wasn't lost in the mail. Plus, as a consultant, doing jury duty means I don't make my mortgage payment.

I had my life handed back to me by a jury after someone falsely accused me of something.. somethat that would have put me in prison for 10-20 years.. after which I would have been locked up in an institution as a "sexually dangerous person".. and I didn't do anything wrong.
The jury saw through the bullshit, and gave me my life back.
My life, reputation, career, and family were all in ruins, but I had a chance to rebuild after finally getting through the gauntlet of a dirtbag ex (and not even MY ex..some

A neighbor was a teacher and accused of molesting two kids. The cops pulled him out of a classroom and ended his career there and then.

Two different kids? You'd assume he's got to be guilty. Turns out the first kid was told to lie by his mother as revenge over bad grades his brother got. One kid wasn't enough evidence so they arrested another kid for stealing a car and told him they'd drop the charges if he chose to "help us with our inquiries." After being told the first kid's confession, he said, "Yeah, that!" to avoid a criminal record.

Took two years for this to come out. Afterwards, his original school told him there were too many concerned parents who believed there couldn't be smoke without fire and he couldn't return there - and every other school found a justification to not hire.

A pretty much broken man, he was dead five years later, still in his 50s.

Those cops knew they were building a fake second half to their case and deliberately ended his career when they arrested him in front of the kids. Given the ultimate end result, that's one step away from manslaughter to me.

In this society, sex crime allegations destroy lives. A false accusation is, in many ways, just as destructive to a life as the alleged act. False accusers should absolutely face the punishment the falsely accused was threatened with, not a slap on the wrist. Similarly, given the accused may also be the victim of what is essentially a sex related crime, the same anonymity "victims" get should be preserved for the accused until they are found guilty. Sorry if that makes convictions a little bit harder but I'd be interested to see figures for what percentage are only convicted because their alleged crimes were publicized vs. the percentage of falsely accused. Something tells me we'd have less victims this way round.

In Sweden, jurys are only used in cases involving treason, espionage, incitement to war and things like that. The law says that jurors should be chosen from individuals known for their independence, honesty and good judgement. So I voted "Am ineligible".

I was notified by Los Angeles County for "on call" jury duty in 1998. I called in and told them, truthfully, that I moved away from Southern California three years earlier. They took me off the list and nobody has ever called me for jury duty since. Almost makes me think they put me on some kind of statewide "no jury duty" list by mistake rather than just taking off the LA County list.

On the off-chance that you actually possess some intelligence somewhere in your brain, allow me to refute your arguments.

1. My user ID is much lower than SilasMortimer's which means I've been using the Slashdot forums longer than he has. Since time travel is impossible, it's not very likely that I am a sockpuppet for him.

2. People with higher karma scores (like SilasMortimer and me, although apparently not you) may get a bonus to their apparent post score, if you have that bonus enabled in your discussion settings. If you don't like it, turn it off, but don't make yourself look like an ass by pointing it out.

For example, here is how your thrilling exchange with SilasMortimer appears to me (headings only):

Notice how the scores are all 1? That's because I turned off the karma bonus modifier.

3. If you really did serve, then I have nothing but respect and admiration for your service. Nevertheless, that is completely irrelevant to the discussion at hand. Your service does not make you an authority on everything.

4. I have a very Voltairean view of free speech, and yes I oppose the DHS and TSA, but I've got nothing against the military in general. Regardless, my positions on unrelated issues (just like your service) are irrelevant to the discussion at hand.

5. You're burning a bridge here, personally. I am sympathetic to the idea of jury nullification, but frankly you are the poster child for its opponents.

6. Unfortunately, the strength of your argument is not correlated with the quantity of expletives you employ.

Somehow, I can already regret wasting the time to write this, but maybe you'll prove me wrong.

I assume you're trolling. We were specifically required to state that we wouldn't use jury nullification in our trial. The reason being that it breaks the deal between the defense and prosecution/plaintiff that they agree to when presenting their case, that the case should be settled based upon the weighing of the facts and the jury instructions. It's not up to the jury to rule on things which are not before them, nor is it their place to decide whether or not it should be illegal, just whether whatever it

So what you are saying is that there is some sort of mass collusion in the dental and medical fields?

I get that Fluoride, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fluoride [wikipedia.org], is not something I want to just go crazy on but you seem to think that the low concentrations of it in our water...that everyone drinks...is some sort of mass plot to kill everyone?

I've already dealt with one troll tonight, please if you are just trolling go away. But if you are really crazy please, do keep posting so we can flag you as such.

Yes, and bannanas are deadly because the potassium they contain explodes on contact with water. That's why bannana growers put plastic bags [cepolina.com] on them, because if it rains the whole farm goes up in a mushroom cloud.

Yes the jury can change a law by creating a precedent. However, a judge can declare a person guilty (or innocent) over-riding the jury. I can't remember the specific term, and I'm too lazy to google right now. Also however, the judge can decide the jury is wrong and declare a mistrial and do it again. At the end of the day it's the judge who has all the power.

However, a judge can declare a person guilty (or innocent) over-riding the jury.

Not according to the Jury Handbook on the FIJA site (emphasis mine):

First, it is reflected in the Sixth Amendment, which grants the accused an inviolable right to a jury determination of his guilt or innocence in all criminal prosecutions for serious offenses. Because of this right, a trial judge absolutely cannot direct a verdict in favor of the State or set aside a jury's verdict of not guilty, "no matter how overwhelming t

Judgment Non Obstante Verdicto or, more modernly, Judgment Notwithstanding the Verdict. A judge can't just make shit up, however, unless he wants to get it tossed on appeal. Sure, federal judges (but not magistrate judges) have life-long appointments, but they still hate it.

However, a judge can declare a person guilty (or innocent) over-riding the jury

Sorry. No.

Actually, in specific circumstances, the judge can rule that undisputed facts and the law alone decides the case, and that the jury doesn't have anything to decide. This is because (in the USA) the jury is the trier of facts and the judge is the trier of law. Such a summary judgement ruling usually comes before the jury deliberates, often in response to motions before the trial actually starts, but rarely may be invoked after the jury gives its' verdict.
IANAL, YMMV, etc.

I think that guilt or innocence of a person should be determined by a judge or judges with a deep knowledge of law and decades of experience practicing law. Not by not so intelligent people who get manipulated by lawyers that have taken acting lessons rather than go to law school. In order for that to be true, judges need not to be elected nor have political affiliations.

The US concept is that juries decide matters of fact, while judges decide matters of law.

No matter how deep a judge's knowledge of the law is, when two sides are debating the actual facts of the case that knowledge becomes essentially meaningless.

Jury trials are a protection against a system of corrupt judges, and against systems which otherwise inherently favor the government. In the USA, there is a flaw in that protection, because decisions can be appealed until a court without jury trails is reached.

The argument that those deciding the case need to know all the intricacies of the law is wrong. If the law is so complex that the jury can't be instructed about the law, then it's so complex that nobody can be expected to obey it. Such laws should be declared null and void by the jury.

I'm creating a new programming language called ChrisMaple. Because programming can be hard for people to understand, it will only have 2 functions with no arguments: Stop and Go. I plan on writing a new OS in it:D

Well, we do have jury nullification laws, but just try and remind the jury of that and in most jurisdictions the judge will declare a miss-trial and jail you for contempt until you have at least paid the costs accrued by the miss-trial.

That is fertilizer, straight from the male of the bovine specie.

I have been called twice, first time they never got that deep into the pool, 2nd time the clerk looked at my age & gave me hell for wasting their time. I said 'You sent the summons, you have access to the voter rolls, you knew that, so why exactly did you waste the stamp to send me the summons? Awkward silence. I was over 65, by a few years then. Still am.

Frankly, it wouldn't bother me, and you would think they would like to take advantage of the experience a senior citizen could bring to the jury box. OTOH, maybe that experience scares the legal folks. Whatever, its plain that using the senior citizen who is likely retired, would have a hell of a lot less effect on making the car payment than pulling some 35 year old away from a $1500 a week job, to collect his $5 + lunch a day, which has a very heavy effect on his performance as a juror. That to me is like being fined $250 a day for the privilege to serve. See my definition of fertilizer above. It hasn't changed...

Like any system invented by man, the jury trial system is fundamentally flawed. But it is more so than the adversarial court system because people with little to no knowledge whatsoever of the law and all its intricacies get to decide whether or not a person is guilty.

There are certainly problems with the jury system, not the least the quality of the jury pool, but the juries are not supposed to determine matters of law, that is what the judge is for. The juries are supposed to judge the facts of the cas

As a counterpoint, I have been in a jury pool where, after having the bailiff take role, the judge ordered the sheriff to locate the missing people and bring them before the judge to explain why they failed to show. Only happened that once, of all the times I have been called, but it can happen.

Doesn't matter if you call or not. At least, not here. Each jury summons I have received had a serial number. If you were exempt, you filled out half the card, mailed that half back, and didn't have to show up. When you show up, you are supposed to bring the other half of the card. The bailiff collects them as you enter the courtroom. They get a list from the computer, check off the people that turned in cards, then call roll. If they don't have your card, and you are not there, the judge can have them prin

hah, it does. and all it would took to avoid was saying "i firmly believe in natural selection where stronger survives. therefore i can't see why anyone would be punished for following natural laws". definitely wouldn't be chosen by prosecution.

The judge was not questioning anyone's religion. The judge's point is that no one is judging whether or not someone is a bad person. The jury is deciding whether the evidence supports a particular chain of events as presented by the district attorney, and that's if it's a criminal trial, which not all juries decide.

I don't know what article you were reading, but I'll quote again from the California Code of Civil Procedure, this time Section 209(a):